Site-specificity by Kwon

In this article, Kwon described site-specific art as the type of “indivisible relationship between the work and its site” (12) He quoted some artists and their argument that their artwork would be meaningless were it moved to a different venue. He then went on to talk about how artists used site-specific art to express a critique of “culture confinement” (24) and later expanding into “anthropology, sociology, literary criticism…etc” (26). I found Buren’s Within and Beyond the Frame really interesting. I liked how it challenges the idea that a piece of artwork must be limited by the size of venue that contains it; else it must be totally outdoors. The breakdown of boundaries symbolized by the crossing of the window would not be observable if we were to shift this artwork somewhere else. Another interesting example that Kwon used was Ukeles’s “maintenance art” involving washing the museum floor inside and outside. What I do not understand is why is such works of art considered site-specific? If Ukeles was scrubbing the floor of a museum other than Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford, will what she was expressing carry a different meaning? If the site can be any venue alike where the original artwork is, how is it “site-specific”?
Kwon also described how people started to move site-specific work “under the right circumstances” (38) He talked about how relocation and refabrication of site-specific artworks brought up the dispute of forgery. I don’t feel sympathetic towards Andre and Judd’s cries of forgery though because I think that the idea of the composition of the artwork matters more than the actual physical creation. The refabrications are still works of their ideas and the lack of their participation in the manufacturing process in no way diminished their ownership of the ideas.